conservation_hint

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that it reuses the premium UniProt fetch (same key + relay/local path as uniprot_entry) and that positions are 1-based canonical, which is real behavioral context. However it omits auth/rate-limit implications of the 'premium fetch' and error behavior, so the disclosure is partial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, and the remaining lines add the fetch-path detail and the alignment prerequisite. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool, though the mixed line breaks make it read a little densely.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema exists, return values need not be described, and the description correctly focuses on purpose, prerequisite workflow, and returned feature categories. For a one-parameter, unannotated read tool this is largely complete, with only auth/caching behavior left implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and there is one required parameter, so the description must compensate. 'For a UniProt entry' implies the argument is a UniProt accession/id, but no format, examples, or edge cases are given. It adds marginal meaning beyond the parameter name.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource and output: a feature table (conservation/functional hint) for a UniProt entry, with named feature categories. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling uniprot_entry by noting it reuses the same fetch path. This is clear, though the primary verb is implied rather than stated outright.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an explicit prerequisite workflow — 'Align your PDB sequence first (sequence_from_pdb + read_fasta) before mapping positions' — naming the sibling tools to run first. It does not state when to prefer this over uniprot_entry directly, so exclusions are absent, but the contextual guidance is concrete.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.